WaPo: Black America Feels the Sting of Ex-President's Comments

[cali]

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 25, 2008; A08

For nearly two decades, Yvette Wider, an African American, adored Bill Clinton, once described by a famous black novelist as the nation's first black president.

But now, after Clinton's "fairy tale" remark about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in New Hampshire and a statement in South Carolina that Obama had put a political "hit job" on him, Wider said she feels she hardly knows the former president. "I was surprised to hear him make a comment like that, because I thought he understood our people better," said Wider, who said she will vote for Obama in Saturday's South Carolina primary. "It made me think he's been playing us all this time."

Wider's sentiments are echoing across black America -- on blogs, Web chats and talk radio, where Clinton is being attacked as never before.

It is a significant turnabout for Clinton, who throughout most of his presidency counted black people as his staunchest supporters. Less than eight years ago, African Americans gave the former president a stratospherically favorable rating -- higher than those for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

With his attacks on Obama, however, that appears to be changing, causing some strategists and observers to wonder whether Clinton's behavior will alienate black voters whom his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), will need should she win the nomination.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402987_pf.html

[Mythsaje]

1. Some of the comments I get as being racially insensitive...

I don't get the "fairy tale" thing at all.

[cali]

2. It's perception

Evidently some African Americans perceive it as a comment about an African American being viable as a presidential candidate as a fantasy. That the remark was evidently aimed at Obama's opposition to the war, becomes meaningless if people perceive it as about his candidacy aa a whole. Did media shape the perception? I don't know. And at this point is doesn't even matter.

[Mythsaje]

3. Yeah. That sucks.

I didn't hear it that way at all...of course, you're right...it's all perception. A bit like some folks thinking Obama's speeches lack substance and others not seeing that at all.

[FrenchieCat]

4. That's how I heard it.....

As though everything about Obama was "made up" sort of speak....and that in the "real" world, it could never happen. Remember; Reality check comment from Hillary?

Getting stabbed in the back is worst when it is a friend who does it. That's what makes it hurt.
It shall not be forgotten.

[Mythsaje]

5. Much of what he says is abstract...

Surely you see that. Or maybe you don't. Hillary's not really any better. Edwards talks about real world problems and real world solutions, things people can sink their teeth into.

I can't believe I'm trying to explain this to you. You absolutely will not see what I'm talking about. You have never shown any interest in trying.

[arewenotdemo]

6. But check this out:

"I never said anything disparaging about him or the reality of his campaign," Clinton said about the fairy tale remark. "It's a brilliant campaign, and this is an example of how brilliant it is. It rests on a false premise. I wasn't trying to be sneering or derisive. I was trying to think of a kinder characterization of his argument."

Here Clinton basically says what people were thinking he said. The Obama campaign itself rests on a "false premise". And Elvis was actually trying to be "kind".

Fuck the Clintons.

[cali]

7. Yikes, I never saw that "false premise" comment

just the first part about the campaign being brilliant. That comment makes it clear what Bill was saying. God, is he fucking up.

[aquart]

15. But how is that racism, sweetie?

Or is a candidate beyond criticism if his skin is darkish?

[arewenotdemo]

32. who said anything about racism?

[aquart]

14. Reaching much?

Strive for a modicum of honesty here. They knew there was nothing there and attacked it as racist anyway. It was a deliberate divide and conquer strategy for South Carolina.

For which Charlie Rangel and others took Obama to the woodshed.

NOW you can continue giving the official version (so like Bush, this is).

[cali]

19. Oh you poor little crumpet, you. I'm just reflecting what numerous

news sources are saying. And I'm not saying that the whiner in chief was being racist. As for Rangel, I'll see your Rangel and raise you a Leahy, a Kerry, a Reich and several others, who havt taken out of control bill to the woodshed.

Sorry, pookie, Clinton is in big trouble if she's the nominee. Her sky high unfavorability scores guarantee that.

[robbedvoter]

20. In other words, a sentence out of context becomes a battle cry - MSM runs with it

[oasis]

8. Obamaist have crafted a "tall tale" out of Clinton's fairy tale comment.

Clinton clearly was refering to the lousy media coverage about Obama's Iraq War flip flopping.

But then, you know that.

[cali]

9. What a lame "analysis". First of all, it's not "Obamaists"

it's the press. Secondly, only someone seriously blinded by partisanship or just a wee bit dim, would characterize Obama's stance on the Iraq war as flip flopping. Thirdly the utter stupidity of treating the African American community so scornfully and using the Southern Strategy developed by the puke party, is breathtaking.

And please, little genius, explain this comment:

"It's a brilliant campaign, and this is an example of how brilliant it is. It rests on a false premise. I wasn't trying to be sneering or derisive. I was trying to think of a kinder characterization of his argument."

Stupid. just stupid.

But you don't seem able to see that. How pathetic.

[oasis]

10. It's a "Southern Strategy"? You're right I don't see it.(eom)

[FrenchieCat]

11. Maybe it was Clinton that invented that Obama "Flip-Flopped"?

Maybe it is the Clintons that flopped.

Summary: Interviewing Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Tim Russert read a quote he attributed to Obama to suggest that he has "not been a leader against the war": "In July of 2004, Barack Obama: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,' in terms of how you would have voted on the war." Russert did not quote the very next sentence of Obama's statement, which was, "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made" for authorizing the war.

At the time....
The Times also reported that Obama "declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

THE FACT CHECKER

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton.

In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports."

He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

so because we had candidates that had voted for that fucked up IWR, Obama, not wanting to EMBARASS THE NOMINEES, stayed vague to a degree.

THANK YOU, BARACK OBAMA.

Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it—"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign—"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing—"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."

Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.

Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.

Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?

I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:

I looked at the quote . He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.

As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.

During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War.
In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal;

in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops;

in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq;

and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.”

Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.”

He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006.

Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.

That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

PS. Barack, just remember how users are. They use you when they can, and then jump on you when your back is turned. remember barack, you are dealing with vultures when you deal with the Clintons, who were handing out the talking points for the seat of their confidente, DNC Chair McAuliffe.




Now contrast that to this:


"That's why I supported the Iraq thing." Bill Clinton, June 23, 2004 (CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

"I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning." Bill Clinton, 11/27/2007, (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?ex=1353906000&en=cf3f18a5f01db61b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So who flipped & flopped?

[oasis]

12. Obama "didn't want to embarrass the nominees". Gotta hand it to that guy,

he's always got an excuse handy whenever he gets nailed for putting his "core beliefs" on the back burner.:thumbsup:

[BeyondGeography]

13. John Kerry understood and appreciated Obama's answer

but who is he as a judge of character compared with you?

[Tellurian]

16. yes, Kerry is a fine judge of character..after he threw Edwards under the bus..

curiously Romeny at last night's debate was repeating Obama talking points. Could it be, there is an alignment of forces between Romney, Obama and Kerry?

Would Kerry stoop so low as to use Republican dirty tricks from high profile Republicans to defeat Hillary's chances for the nomination? I believe he would.

[chascarrillo]

17. Saying Kerry and Romney are in cahoots. How low can one stoop?

Is there anyone you won't smear in order to see your candidate prevail?

Shame, shame, shame.

[Tellurian]

22. I'm not stooping..but if true, it's a sad day for Mr. Clean isn't it..

In case you're not aware of the connection. Romney was Gov of MA until last year. Obama's classmate, Deval Partrick, won the gubernatorial race and is now the MA Governor. Kerry is a Senator representing MA and Obama..

Need a map and a marker to connect the dots?

[robbedvoter]

21. The guy who threw his win in 2004? And kept quiet about it? That judge of character?

Like anyone doesn't know the Kennedys vs the Clintons feud in the dem party! It's personal - high principle has nothing to do with it.

[oasis]

31. John Kerry is the "God Father of Flip Flops" so of course he would understand.(eom)

[Perry Logan]

18. Disturning how the Obama people ignore the fact that all of their accusations have been debunked.

[Essene]

23. Only for fools who refuse to face the truth... (which is sad)

[robbedvoter]

24. And retracted by Obama. The "fairy tale" was included in the "truce"

But we now know, the truce was only meant to give Obama appearance of Mr Nice. Kinda like Bush not knowing about the Swiftboaters.

[Essene]

29. Too bad it was the Clintons who broke the truce, but keep pretending obama did something wrong

jan 13th


"She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “I haven't remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.”

That's all Obama said, tough guy.

[cali]

25. This isn't about how Obama supporters feel or don't

I never saw Clinton's comments as racist- simply petty and nasty.
But this is about how some African American voters feel. And it's clear some of them are not happy with the Clinton duo.

[robbedvoter]

26. No. This is about how MSM is trying hard to make AAs feel. Still hard at work on it.

Throwing more gasoline on that phony fire daily. And no objections from the "truce" guy. Who benefits in SC from it. (If he loses SC - after him the deluge - who cares? it's over anyway)

[Essene]

28. Stop being a tool of race baiting. Seriously.

You're sounding like a republican lap dog.

You cant even admit the facts, but you'll pretend those pointing to them are somehow just brain washed, etc.

Get your facts straight.

I'm not even an Obama supporter...

[cali]

30. You're wrong and you're insufferably patronizing. n/t

[Essene]

27. [facts] This is when the Clintons "started it" (a week+ before obama said a word)

The Clintons began their very very heated and nasty smear campaign in the days leading into New Hampshire (which was the 8th).

"An untested man who offers false hope." "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered." 1/4

Govern in prose (not poetry) 1/6

MLK comment 1/7

Assassination! 1/7

All qaeda will strike! 1/7

Fairy tale rant (the famous bill video) 1/8

Shucks n Jives 1/10

Hip black male who can't provide 1/10

Hispanics wont vote for him 1/12

Obama is an Uncle Tom who was doing drugs when the Clintons were fighting for blacks (1/13)

"99 problems and a Bitch aint one of them" 1/14

Black supporters just because Obama is black 1/15

etc

Obama's first comments about this all? Jan 13th.

And this is what he said:

"She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “I haven't remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Folks then pretended this was race baiting and when Obama "started it." It's a bunch of lies and you can see who in this party still has a spine when they continue these lies. Even after a truce was declared on the 13th, the Clintons kept at it.

PS. I am not an Obama supporter so dont try to pretend that's why im saying this.